What’s Next for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates?

Jul 19, 2011

Proponents of same-sex marriage are quick to claim that all they want is "marriage equality." Nothing more. They’ll be content if they can just have "equality." But we all know that reality doesn't end there. In recent weeks, same-sex advocates have finally begun to admit it themselves.
Published only days ago in a New York Times piece, Stanford Law Professor Ralph Banks, asks:

What now of the two remaining criminal prohibitions of intimate relationships: incest and polygamy? Even as same sex ... relationships are accepted, Americans are now imprisoned for incest and polygamy. ... Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift. … Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so?

Just the rantings of a left-wing professor? No. Professor Banks' words actually have proven to be prophetic (see ADF's Jordan Lorence at the Christian Post blog, here). Just days after the governor of New York signed its same-sex marriage bill into law, a man in Utah, along with his four wives, were inspired to file a lawsuit challenging Utah's polygamy ban, stating, "We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs."

Just equality, right?

Homosexual rights advocate Dan Savage goes even further and continues the marriage muddling, arguing, "We aren’t wired for monogamy." He tells the New York Times magazine that America needs a more "realistic" view of marriage and that it's the LGBT community's responsibility to bring "open relationships" to the definition of marriage — to create an environment that's "more forgiving of the occasional affair." Savage's "It Gets Better" homosexuality campaign targets children and teenagers and is promoted by homosexual groups as an "anti-bullying" project to be used by public schools.

John Corvine, professor at Wayne State University, is heading in the same direction as Professor Banks and Mr. Savage. Reflecting on the same-sex marriage debate in New York, Professor Corvine writes:

It’s worth remembering that polygamy is quite "traditional," even biblical. It is no more logically connected to one side of this debate than the other. The truth is that New York granted same-sex couples marriage rights not because of a radical idea, but because of an old-fashioned one: when two individuals commit to a lifetime of mutual love and care, it's good to support them — or at least get out of their way.

When we stray from the God-given confines of marriage, where do we draw the line? How is it fair to term one meandering relationship "recognized" without validating the other variations? Where does it end?

Same-sex advocates have no intention of declaring victory in New York and calling it quits. The goal is not to advance "equality." The goal is to redefine marriage until existing sexual norms are no longer in existence. Counterfeit forms of marriage cheapen and undermine real marriage. The union of a man and a woman in a committed marriage is the foundation of a stable society. Traditional marriage and family are too important for society to experiment with to advance a political agenda.